Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence

Arbitrators active on this case
Inactive:
 * AGK
 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Newyorkbrad
 * 5) NuclearWarfare
 * 6) Roger Davies
 * 7) Salvio giuliano
 * 8) Timotheus Canens
 * 9) Worm That Turned
 * 1) Carcharoth
 * 2) Risker
 * 3) SilkTork

Word limit
I really do not think it is appropriate to let Lecen exceed the word limit. He is not above the rules.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He asked the drafting arbitrators for an extension. If it's granted, he can keep his evidence as-is; otherwise, he'd have to trim it. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope that it is implicit that if there is an extension, it should be for all users, not just for him. If he says dozens of things about me, then I will have to give dozens of answers; if he had an extension but I had to reply to it in 500 words or less he would have an unfair advantage Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to ask for an extension too, but lets wait to see what the arbitrators say about it first. — ΛΧΣ  21  22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lecen is using length to give strength to his incoherent argument. For example:
 * How does my deletion of an image justify his claim that I am pushing fringe views or reverting "all of his attempts at improvement"? Here is Lecen's original edit, and notice that the "Gauchos resting in the pampas" image is completely random for the biographical article (hence my deletion).
 * How exactly is my "comment" (explicitly called comment) on a FAC, where I even write that "the article is great", suddenly get turned into an "oppose" vote?
 * These are just a few examples (Plenty of more incongruences exist in Lecen's "evidence" text).
 * My point is that, by using an excessive amount of convoluted text, Lecen hides these details and passes them off as facts to his argument.
 * As I learned in the several technical writing classes I took at the university, most human beings get lost in these "text mazes".
 * The whole point of the word limit is to prevent these kinds of situations from taking place.
 * Lecen must follow the guidelines of the process he initiated.
 * Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 01:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As other editors have stated. All those presenting evidence may request an extension of evidence word limit. If you feel that the word limit is preventing you from adequately presenting you evidence and/or your ability to respond or rebut evidence presented against you then you should ask for an extension. You can do that regardless of what Lecen does. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keith. I will remember that for next time. Of course, optimally there should not be a next time ever again.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that allowed?
There are a lot of stuff added by Cambalachero and MarshalN20 that are plain misquotations or simply untrue to the facts. This is a fine example. Cambalachero said: "Note that Lecen misquotes sources. 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' describes the 1960s, not 2013, things changed since then as described." I'm very clear on my statement: "Writing in 1930..." and "Thirty and one years later, in 1961, Rosas’ image had..." Nowhere the year "2013" is mentioned. The only place that the year 2013 is mentioned is in another section called "How has Rosas been seen in the past 25 years by historians (1987–2013)?"

He also said: "The 'Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists...' paragraph is written as if talking about modern day, but cites a reference that talks about the 1930s". The book described the history of the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism up to 2011. The piece of text I quoted is talking about the Neo-revisionists, who only appeared in the 1960s, not in the 1930s. Are editors allowed to fabricate whatever they want in here? --Lecen (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the most interesting concepts of Wikipedia is WP:BOOMERANG, Lecen.
 * As much of an excellence contributor that you have shown to be, plenty of users have also taken note of your incongruent behavior.
 * You act kind and polite when it is convenient for your purposes, but then mistreat and disrespect users who are not of your liking (mainly due to content disagreements).
 * Again, as I wrote in my original "evidence" section, I do not encourage blocks or bans. I think you need help: either a proper mentor (to replace whatever battleground mentality User:Alarbus made you think was right) or some truly strong warning to "cease and desist" (although the latter may just encourage you to find better ways to hide your misbehavior).
 * Wikipedia is a place to enjoy and contribute, not a place to build cliques and treat everything (and everyone) like they are on a battlefield or courtroom.
 * Regardless of all, I still respect you, and I hope that (someday) you will understand that I am a friend, not a foe. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just a grammar issue. The question 'How is Juan Manuel de Rosas seen in Argentina?' has the verb "is", which is in present tense. The 1960s is the past, and if a question in present tense is replied with a past event, it is implied that things did not change since then. As for the other, yes, it was a mistake, but the main point stands: 1930s or 1960s, that's not the present. Yes, the book does get up to 2011, I cited those last chapters at the end, where they say that revisionism is now the official history. Cambalachero (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One point to note is that the Arbitration does not preside over or take sides or give opinions on content issues. Their domain is editor behavior that violates WP policies. You would do well to stick to diffs showing improper behavior and citing the relevant behavioral guideline or policy that you feel is being violated.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:ARBGUIDE which says: Content rulings--Since the ArbCom avoids taking positions in content disputes, instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, make arguments pertaining to concrete and self-explanatory things, such as disruptive conduct or inappropriate actions.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion on the scope and acceptance of this case is currently archived at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. I provided a summary of the Argentine historiography, even if that's article content rather than user behaviour, simply because I was instructed to do so. Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cambalachero said on his statement: "I proved Lecen lying". This is a very strong word. Although I could just as easily show that I was not lying at any moment what really bothers me is that he and MarshalN20 have been both using a really inappropriate language on this case. I came here to complain about the systematic use of Fascist authors and the promotion of Fascist political goals by them. However, they are using the case to bring diffs taken out of context with the purpose of discrediting me. I'm not asking anyone to block them, but the Arbitrators should ask Cambalachero and MarshalN20 to change their tone to an appropriate level. --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Lecen, I tell you once again, I do not have any "Fascist political goals". Please stop.
 * I do not approve of Cambalachero's language, but at least he has diffs to prove his point. He is also keeping the accusations in this place.
 * On the other hand, you keep accusing me of promoting Fascism, and have done it in a couple of places outside of this ArbComm area even after the case had already started. Again, please stop with your unfounded accusations.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the word as required. The links are part of discussions that took place in the whole discussion being discussed here, so they are justified. Cambalachero (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations taken out of context
I'd like to ask both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 not to reply. If I wanted their opinion, I would have had asked directly to them. This is for the arbitrators, as all my other messages were.

Misquotations

Cambalachero wrote on his statement: "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". And to "prove" his point he showed a quote taken from John Lynch's "Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo": "In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten". Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him."

Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars. As usual Cambalachero misquotes sources as he pleases. This is unacceptable. I have been warning the ArbCom of his and MarshalN20's behavior and so far no one has bothered to reply. There is a limit to what an Wikipedian can do and both have crossed the line a long time ago. The biography written by John Lynch is the best available work about Rosas that has been published so far, either in Argentina or abroad. But Cambalachero has never took it seriously. He said that the "historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention." He single handedly dismissed Lynch’s work and regarded it (based solely on his personal opinion) as "faulty", full of "contradictions", the opinions given as "mere political analysis" and accused it of "plagiarism" and that "Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do)". According to Cambalachero, Lynch, the most respected English-speaking expert in 19th century Argentina is a "mere divulgator", not a "serious historian".

In fact, Cambalachero considered Lynch's book "outdated" and for that reason it should be ignored, according to him. He's talking about a book that was published in 2001 and widely regarded as the best available source about Rosas. Every time I tried to add anything according to what Lynch said Cambalachero removed: "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim" (Smith is yet another of Cambalachero's Fascist authors); "analysis". When Lynch is useful to Cambalachero then he becomes a reliable source. And even when that occurs Cambalachero has no qualms in misquoting what Lynch said.

On section "Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources)" Cambalachero used historian Michael Goebel as his only source. Of course he misquoted what Goebel said, even more because Goebel is the same one who said "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". And more: Goebel is not an Argentine, his book was not published in Argentina nor is written in Spanish. It's a book written in English. Suddenly English-speaking authors have become reliable to Cambalachero? But again he misquoted them.

Cambalachero also said: "There is a difference between divulgative historians and real historians: real historians confirm each thing they say in primary sources, or share their doubts about the source's reliability with the reader; divulgative historians simply state 'things happened this way because I say so', without such investigation." On a discussion on Commons Cambalachero called Pacho O'Donnell a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself" whose book "does not use footnotes or documents". That's the very same author whom he as been using as source since 2009 when writing articles and when defending his point of view. O'Donnell is an awful author when Cambalachero needs to make a point on Commons but at the same time he is a great one on Wikipedia in English. What?!

What I said and what I did not say

Cambalachero went as far as to call me a liar when I pointed out that O'Donnell should not be taken serious. In fact, Cambalachero has mentioned that he called me a liar and has called me yet again a liar in here.("I have spotted him lying at least two times")("I proved Lecen lying") Because I did not take serious that O'Donnell (who is not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright) is a "director of the department of history" of an university and "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices (thanks to his ties with the present-Argentine government who wants to boost its claims to the Falklands Islands), I'm called a liar? Are Diffs showing Cambalachero calling me a liar enough to prove that?

Cambalachero also said: "Despite [Lecen] his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself". What?! I never used a single Argentine Fascist as source in any of my articles. To "prove" that I am promoting "many revisionist views" myself he showed this diff: When I expanded Juan Manuel de Rosas I did not use O'Donnell even once: But since the Argentine Fascist/Nationalism/Revisionist is a real political movement I had to use O'Donnel on a Legacy section to show the Revisionists' PoV, of course.

Thus I ask: Is Cambalachero allowed to say whatever he wants even if it has no relation at all with reality? If yes, what's the point of having an arbitration? Lastly, I won't even waste my time mentioning MarshalN20. --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Things are not so absolute. Lynch may be a continent away from Argentine archives and work basically in isolation if compared with Argentine historians, but he can have a better insigth into the British view, antecedents and reactions to the French and British blockades, and I wouldn't mind citing both him and Argentine authors when talking about the 1840s conflict between Britain and Argentina. As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time. Still, I don't need to support an author to point when you say that said author said something that he did not really said (for example, when you said that revisionists that rejected the "blood tables" are at odds with Lynch, when Lynch actually agrees with them in that the "tables" are not reliable). As for O'Donnell being a historian or not, you never clarified that rationale, you simply said that "he's not a historian". You should have explained your conspiracy theory, then I would have explained to you that he was appointed secretary of culture of Buenos Aires in 1983, 20 years before kirchnerism and during an administration of the radical civic union (that is, not even the peronist party); and that Argentine universities are autonomous and appoint their own authorities, without the government intervention.
 * And yes, you promote revisionist views yourself. You are surely not aware of that, but you do promote them. Follow the links, and you will see non-revisionist authors pointing those postulations as revisionist views that did not stand the test of historical verification. As I said, revisionism is not simply about being with or against Rosas, it's more complex than that (there are even revisionist authors who are against Rosas), and some of their main postulations are spreaded at many of your featured articles. That's partially a flaw of Goebel, Rock and others: they talk too much about the political context of revisionism, but too little about the content itself of revisionism, what is it all about and which are its differences with the other historical view. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time." On 9 January 2013 and on 18 February 2013, less than two months ago and after you called him a "mere divulgator" on Commons, you cited him as source. Stick to reality, Cambalachero. --Lecen (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

More:

Cambalachero wrote that in the "English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there". Here is just a few: There it is. A quick look revealed that in the past 20 years (1993-2013) at least one book in English that dealt directly with Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was published every couple of years. I wonder how many "historiographic" wings from non-English speaking countries could claim the same attention. All of the books above say the exact same thing: Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism was and still is a political movement. As Noleander once said, Cambalachero and MarshalN20, "when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". That is painfully clear when we take a look at Cambalachero and MarshalN20's statements: no sources (except for Goebel, who actually says the opposite of what Cambalachero claims) but long and boring babblings. --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The invention of Argentina (1993)
 * Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact (1995)
 * Disappearing Acts: Spectacles of Gender and Nationalism in Argentina's "Dirty War" (1997)
 * Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962 (1998)
 * In the Shadow of the State (1999)
 * Culture and customs of Argentina
 * World Fascism. A Historical Encyclopedia (2006)
 * The Argentine Folklore Movement: Sugar Elites, Criollo Workers, and the Politics of Cultural Nationalism, 1900-1950 (2010)
 * Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the politics of History (2011)
 * Argentina: A Modern History
 * Transformations and Crisis of Liberalism in Argentina, 1930-1955 (2012)


 * "If I wanted their opinion, I would have had asked directly to them."
 * "Lastly, I won't even waste my time mentioning MarshalN20."
 * For heaven's sake, Lecen, you are simply digging yourself a deeper hole with your continuing aggressive behavior. Please stop.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I'd like to add that Noleander bought into the concept of cherrypicking sources for the term "dictator". This is the reason that he kept asking for both Cambalachero and I to provide cherrypicked sources that stated the opposite (i.e., "Rosas was not a dictator"). The logic of Noleander's argument (well intentioned as it may have been) was disputed by other two other Wikipedians, who wrote:
 * Amadscientist (commentator, ): "[M]y intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked."
 * Binksternet (commentator, ): "Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly 'Rosas was not a dictator'."
 * And, of course, Cambalachero and myself also dispute the logic behind Lecen's and Noleander's position. Cherrypicking cannot establish academic consensus, and merely is a display of WP:OR.
 * Lastly, I apologize if this is the incorrect place to write these things, but I do not want negative statements (without foundation) about me to be left unanswered. All the best.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see that you brought that yet again. Amadscientist is the same one who said "The author, John Lynch may have made the statement used but he was certainly not attempting to paint the figure in a particular manner [that is, that Rosas was a brutal dictator]". This shows that Amadscientist only read the first page of the preface (at most), because Lynch's entire book portrays Rosas as a brutal dictator. In fact, it has an entire chapter called "The Terror" just to describe Rosas's atrocities. When I told Amadscientist that he had made one serious accusation against me, what did he do? He said: "No accusation of dishonesty was made. In fact I point blank requested another editor strike out an accusation towards this editor claiming they were lying.)" And erased my post as that could erase what he had said! I don't need the opinion of an editor who is so lazy that couldn't read more than a single page of a book.


 * But since MarshalN20 appeared, let's focus on him now. He and Cambalachero have been promoting the political views of Argentine Fascists. They erased what mainstream historiography said about a brutal dictator and tried to portray him in a positive light (extremely positive, in fact) using sources written by Fascists who had published their books seeking to promote their political views. Well, it's obvious that Cambalachero and MarshalN20 are doing exactly that: promoting the views of Fascist authors. If a Wikipedian had erased anything bad regarding Adolf Hitler (his dictatorship, the Holocaust, etc...) and tried to portray him in a positive way by using Nazi and Neo-nazi sources, how would he be seen by other Wikipedians? The answer is obvious. But MarshalN20 complained that I said this over and over and argued that he's not a Fascist (something that I never said). However, on 26 February MarshalN20 left a message on some talk pages "blemished with Nazi innuendos", in the words of Jehochman. Not just that, but MarshalN20's own statement here was so abusive (and still is to a large extent), that contained "obscene, sexist and degrading" words, according to Keithbob. MarshalN20's behavior is very, very revealing. The Nationalism/Revisionism is a Fascist, authoritarian and misogynistic political movement. I believe I said enough. --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lastly: the Nationalism/Revisionism is also xenophobic (see David Rock on my statement). This is what Paulista01 said about MarshalN20 on February 2012: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want." And more: "Again, you just made my point: not assuming good faith, spreading misinformation and trying to pass as the victim after being the one that made this personal."


 * Lecen, you have yet to show any evidence whatsoever of me "promoting the views of Fascist authors".
 * You further write that "Lynch's entire book portrays Rosas as a brutal dictator", and therefore admit that John Lynch provides an extremely biased view of Juan Manuel de Rosas. I do not understand how you can think that such a biased work is good to write an NPOV account of Rosas. Remember that NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (please see WP:PILLARS).
 * Regarding the alleged "Nazi innuendos", the term "heil" is German for "hail" and "Pisco" is a South American alcoholic beverages (not a Nazi term). My aim was for the short phrase to be comical, not insulting. Although "Pisco" apparently sounds German (not sure how or why), it is not. In retrospect, given the misinterpretations, I deserve a WP:WHACK (or two) at the most.
 * Regarding the situation with Keith, I fixed the problem and apologized for the completely unintentional obscenity. Keith understood and has written a comment below about the whole matter (see ). Lecen, you surely must have read it, and I do not appreciate your attempts at trying to confuse the arbitrators.
 * Lastly, user Paulista01 is part of the clique that I mention in the evidence section (see ). He is the one that wrote several unwarranted ugly things about me because I wrote that User:Tonyjeff's edit history shows he is "a Brazilian or a Brazilianist". User:Wee Curry Monster (aka Justin, the user Lecen mentions in his evidence section) even wrote about Paulista: "Noting that User:Lecen comments regularly on your talk page, could you please confirm A) you're not communicating by email and B) you were not canvassed to cast a vote?" (I can provide the diff, if necessary).
 * Again, I please ask you Lecen to stop digging yourself into a bigger hole. I repeat my claims of value and respect towards you as an editor, but your erratic behavior is simply getting worse. I honestly hope that the arbitrators find a more constructive solution than blocking you, but (given the constant insults from your part) there is not much else I can or will do for you.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, another explanation turned into a WP:TLDR. Lecen, I will keep this short. I said that there is no established body of historians studying Rosas in the English-speaking world, and you don't agree. Better than mere google hits, name at least 5 full and specific biographies of Rosas (besides Lynch's), at least a pair of institutions, historical societies or similar devoted to the study of Rosas or a topic that is very close, and some book detailing in at least a full chapter how has Rosas been seen and studied outside of Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks
Lecen continues insulting me. The latest : "You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you." The evidence provided by Lecen here barely mentions me, and (although I have attempted to take the Nazi, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, etc. in a light manner) by this point his accusations are nothing more than personal attacks. It is also worth noting that I have already tried to talk about this with Lecen, but he continues to ignore the point.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that parties' behavior during the arbitration case is generally examined quite closely by the Committee when determining whether to impose sanctions; anyone who engages in inappropriate conduct at this juncture is really just shooting themselves in the foot. Kirill [talk] 03:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would echo Kirill's comment. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presentation
It's disappointing to see that the only way some editors can present their evidence is to use headings citing essays that have little or no validity as guides to editor behavior and are obscene, sexist and degrading.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with one of my section titles, you can always use my talk space (User talk:MarshalN20) or directly mention my name here (along the lines: "MarshalN20, could you please remove the 'WP:DICK' essay as I consider it obscene?"). In any case, the point of the essay is not the title, but its message (content) regarding user behavior.
 * My other section titles provide different headings, so that is not "the only way [I] can present [...] evidence". Given your comment, I will respect your desire to avoid using a term you consider "sexist and degrading". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marshal for your comment here and your apology on my user page. I respect and admire your ability to receive feedback and respond in a way that is helpful and productive. If I have any further comments about your evidence I will honor your request and bring them to your user talk page rather than addressing them here in this forum. Thank you for discussing this with me. Best wishes, -- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 03:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for extended evidence
I'd like to remind everyone that the extension of the evidence limits to allow an additional 2000-word submission on reliability of sources was granted on three conditions:"(a) The additional statement may only discuss the historiography of the topic, the sources used (or not used) in articles about it on Wikipedia, and whether those sources represent majority, minority, or fringe views of the topic (cf. WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE). (b) The additional statement must not discuss, reference, or mention any editor or their actions. (c) The additional statement must be submitted in its own, distinct section on the evidence page."A number of the statements currently on the page violate condition (b); this is not acceptable. If there is any reference to any specific editor within the additional section, it will be considered to fall under the original 1000-word limit (and will likely be removed as a consequence). Please ensure that, if you're taking advantage of the extension, you do not reference other editors in your additional statement. Kirill [talk] 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation
Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and their friends made more than just a few pretty serious accusations toward me. Since I'm not aware if I'll be allowed to respond later, I decided to do it now.

Cambalachero
1) "He also holds a grudge against me because I rejected his GAN 4 years ago, and he never dropped the stick" and "Here he opposed a FAC I had begun for the accuracy of a sentence about a passing-by comment about Brazil... that he had proposed himself at an earlier FAC..."

Quite incorrect. The GAN was on February 2010. The article was Platine War and Cambalachero opposed it (without giving me the chance to respond) because it called Rosas a dictator (I mentioned this affair on my statement). Despite the headache Cambalachero had given me over this one article, I still thought that he may have been a well-intentioned, though misguided, editor. At that time, I was not aware that he had been pushing fringe views across several articles. In July 2011, Cambalachero was trying a second time to get May Revolution through FA candidacy. Although I saw some fairly serious issues in the article, I suggested improvements rather than opposing outright. I also went to his talk page and said "I was really trying to help and I even asked other editors to copy-edit your article to improve its prose" I also wished him good luck, and I sent another message soon wishing him again good luck and providing a few more suggestions.

In April 2012 (almost a year later) he was trying a FAC nomination for the fourth time and I opposed it (because he doesn't use sources in English and because he is not faithful to what mainstream historiography says). He tried another three times (for a total of seven) and I didn't say a word.

For reasons unknown to me, Cambalachero seems to have held a grudge against me. He began appearing on move requests to stand on the other side of whatever I was supporting or opposing, even though those were articles where he had never contributed before, nor had ever commented on their talk pages. This may be where he encountered MarshalN20 and began to seemingly tag-team in opposing my statements. The most recent example would be my FAC for Uruguayan War this March. The article has existed since May 2009, but neither has ever edited it or engaged on its talk page. However (and to me, not surprisingly), they appeared on the FAC and opposed it. They claimed they had seen it in the WP Military History project. Why had they never previously bothered to review other FACs? Why would they choose to review one from an editor with whom they have had a troubled relationship?

At times, I have been provoked to the point of outrage by Cambalachero and Marshaln20's intransigent behavior, and have expressed such on their talk pages at times. My words may not have been constructive, but accurately reflect the extreme frustration that their unremitting behavior produced in me, and likely in other editors. At different points over the years, I attempted to work past our conflict and tried to assist, but each time he has responded by exhibiting the same PoV-pushing and vendetta-like behavior.

Now ask him when did he attempt to help me. He never tried.

2) "Lecen accuses me and MarshalN20 of tag teaming, but without other proof than just some shared opinions."

See above.

3) "Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself."

None of the Featured Articles I wrote had Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books among the many sources cited. They are either books in English or in Portuguese.

4) "He keeps telling us that Odonnell isn't reliable, but then he should explain this and this."

When I tried to rewrite Juan Manuel de Rosas article I didn't use O'Donnell as source. Not even a single time. I planned to use it, and merely to portray the Nationalist/Revisionists' view regarding Rosas, in the Legacy section. I never had the chance because Cambalachero and MarshalN20 reverted my edits.

On the Evidence talk page Cambalachero tried to explain why he used O'Donnell when he said that he wasn't reliable: "As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. That's why I used him as a source 4 years ago, but not anymore since a very long time." On 9 January 2013 and on 18 February 2013, less than two months ago and after Cambalachero called O'Donnell a "mere divulgator" on Commons, he cited the author as source.

5) "...he requested article ownership here and here..."

That's not what the links provided show.

6) "...he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial."

Without consensus? Did I ever say that? None of the diffs provided by Cambalachero shows that. I can't understand why writing an article based on books written by mainstream historians would be regarded "controversial".

7) "Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer."

None of the diffs provided show that.

8) "Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises... that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived"

I won't accept any proposal that has Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist books included as reliable sources. Of course, if the ArbCom says that they are okay, I won't be able to oppose.

9) "He had an edit war with MarshalN20..."

MarshalN20 insisted on editing my comment, something well-known by everyone that is not allowed.

10) "He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here"

The administrator didn't protect the article because of "tag bombing". It was I who asked him to keep an eye on the article.

11) "...another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here"

Again, it was I who asked to administrator (the same from above) to do it.

12) "Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus..."

I don't. English-speaking authors who said that. It's all in my statement.

13) "I proved Lecen speaking falsely here, here and here"

Calling me a liar doesn't mean that Cambalachero "proved" that I was "speaking falsely". What I did was not to mention that Pacho O'Donnell is not the "director of the department of history" of an university as well as "secretary of culture of Buenos Aires", both politically appointed offices.

Cambalachero doesn't misrepresent facts and diffs. He does the same with sources.

Cambalachero and sources
1) "Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there. Most of them, of the divulgative type. John Lynch said it himself: 'In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten'."

This is not what Lynch meant. Here is what Lynch actually said (my emphasis added): "Scholars and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of the frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use of state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's book] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, traded with him and finally rescued him." In the piece of text Cambalachero took out of context Lynch was talking about the average Argentine and the average British, not about scholars.

Misrepresenting sources is unacceptable.

2) "Is revisionism reliable? It depends on the author, not the school"

What is the main (and practically only) source Cambalachero used on his statement? Michael Goebel. The same one who said (see the e-mail I sent to all arbitrators): "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff".

Yet again has Cambalachero misrepresented sources.

3) Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc.

Is it? On the article about Juan Manuel de Rosas on Wikipedia in Spanish it's written (see es:Juan Manuel de Rosas): "Gran parte de la historiografía argentina sigue considerando a Rosas un dictador o un tirano, mientras que la corriente revisionista le niega tal carácter, considerándolo un defensor de la soberanía nacional." ("Great part of the Argentine historiography still regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, while the Revisionist wing denies that, regarding him the defender of national sovereignty"). In other words: Mainstream historiography in Argentina regards Rosas a dictator or a tyrant, but the Nationalists/Revisionists do not agree. The English-speaking authors and Wikipedia in Spanish have both a similar view, but one completely different from the view supported by Cambalachero. Who is correct?

MarshalN20
1) "Lecen's behavior and Hispanophobia"

MarshalN20 presented some diffs taken out of context. During a move request in an article he kept accusing me and others of "Brazilian PoV" and "Brazilianism" (I'm Brazilian), even though we were using as sources books written only in English.

As can be seen, given the context, my ironic remarks make far more sense.

MarshalN20's accusations were not taken in such a light mood by others. One editor complained to MarshalN20: "Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments. You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil. It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas. You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want."

2) "Lecen's behavior and Group tactics to push POV"

He was talking about WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force. Unfortunately, it can be regarded a failure, since the editors were never able to work together to review and improve articles related to Brazilian imperial history. The task force was even less useful for the purpose of using "Group tactics to push POV" (I'm being ironic). Try looking for the name of the users who are part of the task force in any of the discussions (I believe Limongi made a single comment once). You won't find them. In the diffs presented by MarshalN20 you will see my name as well as Astynax's (the two editors who wrote the article where the discussion was going on).

MarshalN20 and sources
1) "Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)"

No sources were shown in here so there is nothing to comment about.

I won't reply to the Cambalachero and MarshalN20's friends' statements because they were written after the time limit. --Lecen (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)